One simple reason. Very Very Simple…
You have a chance to come back after getting shot
Seriously, when I get on COD or BF I hate dieing. The kill times get me frustrated along with the fact that the guns in the game don’t differentiate from each other to notice they are unique in their own way.
A shame the other mechanics still bring Halo 4 down a peg.
Fully agreed, with both you two. Fingers crossed for 5…
I totally agree with this.
That is the reason why I have never been able to get into other FPSs like COD. I can’t stand the kill times.
Killtimes above 1 second, lack of ADS, and lack of cover are the main attributes of Halo gameplay that I enjoy. I love Halo’s fluidity of player-controlled movements, as opposed to having to do everything with a separate button press (press a button to get into cover, press a button to aim, press a button to grab ledge, press a button to slide, press a button to vault obstacle, etc.).
> That is the reason why I have never been able to get into other FPSs like COD. I can’t stand the kill times.
I can easily kill a “pro” player in COD etc than Halo, any day of the week -_-
> One simple reason. Very Very Simple…
>
> <mark>You have a chance to come back after getting shot</mark>
>
> Seriously, when I get on COD or BF I hate dieing. The kill times get me frustrated along with the fact that the guns in the game don’t differentiate from each other to notice they are unique in their own way.
This is pretty much my argument for why Halo is the only FPS I play religiously. I don’t care for the concept of “I shot first therefore I win”.
This same point can be used as a counter to your own argument.
It basically comes back to your preference on the matter. This doesn’t make Halo better, just different.
If you play both respective games in the way they are supposed to be played then respawn/kill times are irrelevant. It’s when you try to play one game in the same manner you would the other that things get frustrating.
I keep my Halo and Battlefield perspectives pretty compartmentalized in that I can mentally distinguish my play style when playing either one. You don’t run-and-gun in BF and it’s not very rewarding to be cautious and paced in Halo.
I play BF3 as if it was more real. I think “What would I do in this situation in real life? Would I charge the based or sneak around the back?”
In Halo I think “I can jump really high and can take a couple of shots before I lose my shields, maybe I’ll be lucky enough to get to the next corner before he kills me.”
I like both (though Halo gets on my nerves quite a bit more than BF) and it’s because they both play so differently. In saying this, I disagree with the OP. Halo isn’t better because of this, just different than other FPSs.
An aside: I disregard CoD here because, in my opinion, compared to Battlefield, it doesn’t exist.
Also, (disregarding the negativity associated with double posting and choosing to not just edit this into my previous post) it’s not just “I shot first, I win.” in Battlefield. The fact that you die more easily in these kind of games makes it more of a measure of your ability to read and utilize your surroundings instead of JUST your ability to out-BR someone. Sure, this element is in Halo, but it’s effect is greatly multiplied in BF.
My frustration with Halo is “I see him but he doesn’t see me because he’s neglecting to check his six at all; but if I shoot him, there’s a chance he could run away or turn around and Bumper-Jumper the piss out of me.”
In BF, I suppose I see it as rewarding people for being cautious and checking your back every so often.
I agree with Epigone here. Halo and Battlefield are fundamentally based around different ideals. Halo has a high emphasis on more physical skills, i.e. how well you can use the controller to strafe and jump and aim and so on. The combat in Battlefield, on the other hand, is all about assuring that you get to hit the opponent first (or just reacting fast enough).
You could, of course, always go into an argument about which is the better or more flexible philosophy to design a shooter around. But the reality of it is that they’re just different and any differences in the potential are negligible. So, purely on the basis of kill times, you can’t say that Halo is better than any other shooter. You need to consider how the rest of the gameplay is designed around those kill times.
HALO 4 > HALO REACH
Its sad how the HALO community has turned into kids that love Reach. Reach felt so far from HALO even though HALO 4 has so many COD aspects to the game. Its still better than REACH.
> I agree with Epigone here. Halo and Battlefield are fundamentally based around different ideals. <mark>Halo has a high emphasis on more physical skills, i.e. how well you can use the controller to strafe and jump and aim and so on. The combat in Battlefield, on the other hand, is all about assuring that you get to hit the opponent first (or just reacting fast enough)</mark>.
>
> You could, of course, always go into an argument about which is the better or more flexible philosophy to design a shooter around. But the reality of it is that they’re just different and any differences in the potential are negligible. <mark>So, purely on the basis of kill times, you can’t say that Halo is better than any other shooter.</mark> You need to consider how the rest of the gameplay is designed around those kill times.
I would say that the kill times are at the very least the main contributors to the type of gameplay. When kill times are short like in CoD or BF, who wins an engagement comes down to who saw and shot first–i.e. reaction. When kill times are longer, you can’t just see someone first and get the first shot; you have to follow that kill through for the whole 1.5-ish seconds, so engagements come down to who can get more shots in in an amount of time (which I believe is a better test of skill). This encourages long-term planning and strategy over short-term awareness and reaction.
Now, you mentioned that Halo emphasizes “how well you can use the controller to strafe and jump and aim and so on.” I think this is very important because in more “modern” shooters that have faster kill times, strafing and jumping are a lot less relevant. This is why mechanics such as sprint, ledge-grabbing, or vaulting work in other shooters, but are/would be detrimental to Halo gameplay.
> When kill times are longer, you can’t just see someone first and get the first shot; you have to follow that kill through for the whole 1.5-ish seconds, so engagements come down to who can get more shots in in an amount of time (which I believe is a better test of skill). This encourages long-term planning and strategy over short-term awareness and reaction.
I disagree. I don’t think either is inherently better. First of all, I have to say that the ability to respawn in Battlefield kind of ruins the point of kill times. But by having no respawn, the full benefits of faster kill times actually become apparent. You see, the lack of respawn combined with practically immediate kill times forces you to be certain about your every move or you’ll be dead. Tactically, it’s a tougher game than Halo because you can’t rely on being able to run around exposed and having the enemies know where you are.
In such a game – what people generally refer to as a “tactical shooter” – the long term planning and the ability to predict your opponents’ strategy are crucial because you can’t rely on changing your tactics as soon as you respawn (because there is no respawn). So, in such a game, it’s quite the opposite of what you are saying. You can’t expect to rely on your reaction time alone because you will never even see the opponent before they kill you.
It’s not any more or less strategic than Halo, it’s just slower and more methodical. Now whether this changes when you add respawn to the equation is another question. It makes consideration of your own decisions less important because after making a mistake you can just respawn. But it’s still about seeing your opponent before you are seen which relies as much on getting inside your opponent’s head whether you respawn or not.
>
Back when I used to play Modern Warfare 2, I played a lot of Search and Destroy. I don’t know how familiar you are with CoD, so the settings are: respawns disabled; rounds can be won by (1) eliminating the other team, (2) planting and detonating the bomb at one of two sites, or (3) defusing the bomb; and first to win four rounds wins the match.
Now, I absolutely agree that this was a very tactical gametype, and I would say that the fast kill times make it even more so because there is no escaping from a wrong move. However, when respawns are enabled, the game becomes much less tactical and more about running-and-gunning.
My opinion is that though CoD/BF’s default style does require skill, it does not require thought. By this, I mean that you may be able to tell the difference between skilled/experienced and unskilled/inexperienced players, but it’s a lot more difficult to tell the difference between smart and not-so-smart players. Settings such as no respawn or long kill times add thought and planning to a match that would otherwise be settled on dexterity alone.
> A shame the other mechanics still bring Halo 4 down a peg.
To you I guess, but not to me.
> > A shame the other mechanics still bring Halo 4 down a peg.
>
> To you I guess, but not to me.
And you’re entitled to your opinion. Not gonna see any arguments there.